Be the first to like this
Would you please place before REJ Parkin
I thank you for your letter and apologies of the 31st of January
Referring to the letters of REJ Parkin dated the 31st Jan 2012 and
of the 5th of December from VP Walker both providing the reasons for the
the case to Bristol.
If it was practical for Vice President Walker to write the reasons for
transfer then it stands to reason it was practical to consider all of the
requests of the letter dated 3rd Dec 2012 including the wish to appeal the
However; All of these points are a distraction from the real nub of the case
The respondents representatives are intent on muddying the waters with
diversions, disruption and case law.
The bare facts of the cases are as follows.
The claimant was on annual leave (a legal entitlement)
Due to extraordinary circumstances involving air travel there was a delay
The claimant was provided with the first available return flight home by the
airline (a legal requirement)
The claimant returned to work and was summarily charged with gross
misconduct becoming ill as a result (Industrial accident)
From a European Court ruling yesterday
Under extraordinary circumstances, as it stands to reason an airline has a
duty of care to passengers , the same reasoning easily applies to an
employer who's employees for the same reason cannot get to work.
The employer has a legal obligation, a duty of care to provide annual leave
If the annual leave is disrupted as it was, beyond the employees and
employers control it stands to reason the employer also has a duty to care.
I refer to my submission of the 2nd January 2013
The facts are the claimant was before the Owen Tribunal all the facts were
available but not explored by that tribunal why should they be? Not every
stone should be turned.
The obsolete case of Henderson v Henderson has been raised in proceedings
170 year old case law..??
I would like to raise more recent cases from 1914 - 1918 - 306 British and
commonwealth troops were executed for desertion.. They were pardoned in